Change Your Image
austinmalcom7
Reviews
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Analysis of Judah's Decision from Two Opposing Moral Perspectives
Dr. Judah Rosenthal, a wealthy and well-respected ophthalmologist, is forced to make a life- altering decision when his long time mistress, Dolores, threatens to reveal their affair and his less-than-honest economic practices to his wife and family. He can either come clean to his wife and jeopardize everything he has worked his entire life to accomplish or kill Dolores to rid himself of the problem. After several attempts to reason with her, he decides to make arrangements to have her killed. Was his cruel action morally justified? According to John Stuart Mill, morality is determined by the greatest happiness principle. In order words, morality is solely dependent on a simple arithmetic equation of net happiness. By killing Dolores and putting an end to her happiness, he was able to ensure the happiness of his entire family. The act of murder could be considered moral is this context. However, there is an alternative way to view Judah's action. Putting her to death riddled him with guilt, and therefore took away his happiness. Furthermore, due to his guilt, he was a shell of the man he once was. This also sacrificed the happiness of his family, because they could no longer enjoy his company and were constantly concerned with what caused his dramatic change in behavior. Even though he seemed to have dealt with his guilt at the end of the movie, it was ambiguous whether or not he was truly happy.
Immanuel Kant proposes an alternative concept of morality. According to Kant, morality has nothing to do with the consequences of an action. The key principle of Kant's argument is the categorical imperative. This states that one should never act in a way that he/she would not will to be a universal law. Therefore, Dr. Judah's decision to have Dolores put to death was in no way moral, regardless of the consequences. He should not kill, because he does will murder to be a universal law.
Antigoni (1961)
Ethical Dilemmas of Antigone
Antigone is faced with an ethical dilemma at the beginning of the tragedy when King Creon ordered that one of her brothers, Eteocles, would be given the burial of a hero. Her other brother, Polynices, was to be left outside of the city unburied for wild animals to pick apart. Anyone who disobeyed this decree would be put to death. Antigone is forced to make a life-altering decision: to risk death and bury her brother or to go against the will of the gods. Antigone decides to go against the will of the King and bury her brother. No one knows that it was her who went against the king. After the king has his men uncover the body, the guards of the body catch her burying him a second time. Was her action justified? In her defense, she proclaims that the gods order that he must be buried. In Euthyphro, however, it was determined that an action is not just simply because the gods command it. Furthermore, there was no need to bury him a second time, especially in broad daylight. This shows that it was no longer about honoring her brother or the gods; she wanted to spite the king.
After her decision, King Creon is forced into an equally challenging ethical dilemma. He must decide to follow through with his word and sentence her to death or to have mercy on her. Despite his son and other's belief that it was a noble deed, the king believes that his power and authority will be jeopardized if he lets her live. He orders that Antigone be sealed in a tomb and left for dead. King Creon changes his mind, but it is too late. Antigone hung herself in her tomb. This triggers a causal chain, in which his son and his wife also commit suicide. He is left alone to suffer the consequences of his decision. The inflexibility of both parties caused the tragedy to occur.
L'enfant sauvage (1970)
The State of Nature in The Wild Child
The Wild Child depicts a young boy found alone in a forest in France. He was unclothed and his body was covered with lacerations, indicating that he had been in the forest of a long time. As one might expect, this discovery sparked nationwide interest. After initially being placed in a home for death and mute children, it became increasingly clear that he did not belong there. The movie documents the attempt of Doctor Itard to educate him and prove that it was his unusual circumstance that made him the way he was, not his lack of intelligence. The movie perfectly illustrates the human state of nature. Hobbes and Rousseau, two early modern philosophers, provided two different accounts of this state of nature and used them to develop the basis of each of their social contracts. The Wild Child further illuminates the importance of self-preservation, which is the fundamental concept of Hobbes's state of nature. Many characteristics of Victor's behavior, such as his ability to climb trees and his instinct to bite those who captured him, provide evidence in support of Hobbes's account. However, Rousseau, who agrees that self-preservation is important, also understands that compassion is a part of humans in the state of nature. The way he touches the face of the Doctor and his primary care giver is his form of affection and provides the viewer with the notion that he is capable of being compassionate. The return of Victor at the end of the movie could be taken two ways. On one hand, he could have returned simply because he was hungry which indicates the importance of self-preservation. This represents Hobbes's perception of the state of nature. On the other hand, Victor could have returned because he was conscious of the doctor and his caregiver's interest in him. This indicates the concept of amore propre and supports Rousseau's claim.